Learning Goals:

  1. Describe the empirical gaps in the contact theory literature.
  2. Explain what a meta-analysis is and how it can be used to summarize disparate research results
  3. Explain the problem of publication bias, how it can arise especially in small studies
  4. Explain the parasocial contact hypothesis and identify its underlying scope conditions

Background:

Mechanisms through which contact can reduce prejudice:

  1. Increasing knowledge about the out-group and revealing negative stereotypes to be false.
  2. Reduce anxiety about encounters with out-group members (remember our discussion of “aversive racism”)
  3. May result in increased empathy and perspective-taking
  4. May reduce the salience of ethnic boundaries by highlighting commonalities
  5. Forge friendships that create “positive affective spillovers” to other outgroup members

Allport’s scope conditions:

Meta-analysis

How much does this cow weigh?


Contact Hypothesis Re-evaluated

Why do they focus only on 27 studies out of the hundreds published?


  1. Most of the > 500 studies are observational.
    • Problem of selection into contact
  2. Many experimental studies outcomes immediately after the treatment
    • No info on whether contact can lead to long-term reductions in prejudice

Does contact reduce racial prejudice? If we just consider experimental studies, the answer is “yes,” but the effects are quite moderate.

For studies published between 2007-2019 (N=9), the effect works out to a movement of around 3-4 points on a 100 point “feeling thermometer”.

For comparison, between 1984 and 2016, the average feeling thermometer responses in relation to LGBTQ people went from 30.9 (cold) to 60.7 (warm).

In other words, from the (surprisingly small experimental) literature, it seems that contact has a small but statistically significant effect in reducing prejudice, on average…

But that’s not the whole story…

Publication bias and the problem with small studies

Publication bias occurs when the direction or strength of a study’s outcome influences whether it is published or not. When academic journals are reluctant to publish research papers that report statistically insignificant treatment effects, studies that produce weak or null effects may remain invisible to the academic community.

Why is this a problem especially for small studies? Because small studies are more likely to uncover extreme effects!

Example: Remember Metababoost?


Suppose we drew 20 samples with N = 20 (10 control, 10 treatment):

But now what happens if only the statistically significant studies get published, while the rest get put in a file drawer?

Notice that this is not a problem with large, well-powered studies:

Publication Bias for Real



In fact, if we focus only on the large studies, we find only mixed evidence that contact reduces prejudicial attitudes (although we do see that contact can reduce discriminatory behavior).

What exactly is the treatment?

Even if the literature shows that contact reduces prejudice (in some cases) and discrimination (in more cases), the relevant policy question is: what types of concrete policy interventions work?

To answer this question, we need to think carefully about how well the intervention meets the conditions for positive contact:

Answering these questions will help us to better determine which scope conditions are necessary or sufficient, as well as whether they are substitutes or complements.

How would you assess Mousa’s study on these criteria?

Group activity:

Random Groups:
Do based on how many people submit response papers…



How well do the interventions in following studies fit the criteria for “good” contact?

Boisjoly et al:


This paper investigates the consequences of intergroup interactions by examining whether attitudes and behaviors change when people of different races are randomly assigned to live together at the start of their first year of college at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). We choose this environment because some students are assigned roommates randomly, thus allowing us to identify causal effects. We find that white students who are randomly assigned African American roommates are significantly more likely to endorse affirmative action (taking race into account in the University admissions process) and have personal contact with members of other ethnic groups after their first year.

Finseraas and Kotsadam:


This article explores the causal effect of personal contact with ethnic minorities on majority members’ views on immigration, immigrants’ work ethics, and support for lower social assistance benefits to immigrants than to natives. Exogenous variation in personal contact is obtained by randomising soldiers into different rooms during the 8-week basic training period for conscripts in the Norwegian Army’s North Brigade. During these 8 weeks, soldiers basically spend all their time with their roommates and fellow conscripts in the platoon. A normal day of boot camp starts with activities within the room, such as cleaning and preparing the room before inspection. Working hours are intense, usually 10–15 h a day. In addition, soldiers are expected to prepare their individual gear and equipment for the following day after duty ends. This leaves the soldiers with few opportunities for personal chores and socializing outside their own room. The room is also important since it usually constitutes a squad within a platoon in the company. Thus, sharing room during the training period constitutes intense treatment in the form of personal contact. The study finds a substantive positive effect of contact on views on immigrants’ work ethics, but small and insignificant effects on support for immigrants having the same rights to social assistance as Norwegians, as well as on views on whether immigration makes Norway a better place in which to live.

Scacco and Warren:


We conducted a field experiment—the Urban Youth Vocational Training (UYVT) project—to test whether sustained contact in an educational setting can improve communal relations in a conflict-prone environment. The UYVT intervention brought together a random sample of Christian and Muslim young men from disadvantaged neighborhoods in Kaduna, Nigeria, a city that has experienced repeated episodes of severe religious violence, for sixteen weeks of computer training.

The goal of our study is to make inferences about the effects of intergroup contact on individuals in conflict zones, not simply people who volunteer for peacebuilding programs. We therefore randomly selected study participants from among the residents of the poorest and most conflict-prone neighborhoods in Kaduna. Since it is typically young men who carry out violence, we restricted our sample to men aged 18 to 25.

The UYVT training program structured participant interaction in a basic computer-skills class under the supervision of three experienced teachers, one Muslim and two Christian. Homogeneous classes were taught exclusively by a teacher from the same religion as the students. There were 30 course sections: 20 religiously heterogeneous and 10 homogeneous. Each section met twice weekly for a total of four hours per week over sixteen weeks. Students remained within the same classroom working with the same partner on a shared lap-top for the duration of the course. The curriculum focused heavily on cooperative activities performed jointly by learning partners during each of 29 class sessions. Course topics included basic knowledge of MS Windows, MS Office, and introductions to internet resources such as email, Skype, and free online educational content. Since over 40% of the sample had never previously used a computer, and two-thirds had previously used a computer less than once per week, this content was highly valued.

Class sessions were organized to maximize assigned partner interaction through fun, hands-on learning ac- tivities. At the beginning of each session, teachers lectured for approximately 30 minutes. The remainder of class time was devoted to partner work, with guidance from teachers. Partners designed flyers that could be used to advertise computer courses, computed FIFA and UEFA soccer team and country rankings, researched the West African Ebola crisis, and produced presentations on countries they would like to visit. To avoid reporting bias, students and instructors were not informed about the main purpose of our study, but instead experienced UYVT as an educational empower- ment program targeting disadvantaged communities in Kaduna. By design, no component of the curriculum involved explicit prejudice-reduction or anti-violence messaging.

To assess the impact of our intervention, we randomized (1) recruitment into the computer training program, (2) assignment to a religiously homogeneous or heterogeneous classroom, and (3) assignment to a coreligious or non-coreligious learning partner within the classroom.

We measured prejudice through survey-based assessments of agreement with negative and positive stereotypes, and measured discrimination through two behavioral games (e.g. donating money to an anonymous outgroup member) embedded in our post-treatment survey.

We find that though prejudice is resistant to change, intergroup contact can reduce discriminatory behavior: After the end of the training course, subjects assigned to heterogeneous classes discriminated significantly less against out-group members than subjects assigned to homogeneous classes. This suggests contact can change behavior even without attendant changes in entrenched attitudes.

We also present evidence suggesting a striking explanation for why subjects in mixed classes discriminate less than subjects in homogeneous classes. Mixed-class subjects do not actually discriminate much less after the end of the course than a third group of randomly assigned non-UYVT study participants. However, subjects assigned to homogeneous classes discriminate significantly more than these nonparticipants. This suggests opportunities for in-group bonding can heighten discrimination, and programs for mixed groups may be desirable not simply because they expose participants to out-group individuals, but because they reduce the time spent with in-group members. This insight has eluded much of the literature on social contact interventions, which focuses on comparing individuals in mixed and nonmixed contact environments and commonly neglects comparisons to subjects not exposed to the intervention. Our research design enables comparison of both contact treatments with non-UYVT participants.

Kalla and Broockman:


The experiments we present study outreach from canvassers for community-based organizations who reached out to have conversations with voters in person and over the phone. Canvassers approached members of the general population by knocking on individuals’ doors or calling them on the phone unannounced. Canvassers first asked individuals their view on immigration and what considerations were on each side of the issue for them.

Next, canvassers engaged in the strategy we study: non-judgmentally exchanging narratives. For example, in Experiment 1, which targeted attitudes toward unauthorized immigrants, canvassers asked voteres about their own previous experiences with immigrants. This was intended to help elicit “voters’ own experiences that relate to the undocumented immigrant experience.” Then canvassers asked individuals to tell a story about “a time when someone showed [them] compassion when [they] really needed it”.

Canvassers also provided narratives about immigrants they knew or, if they were immigrants, about themselves. The canvassers’ goal was to encourage individuals to engage in perspective-taking (that is, considering outgroup members’ point of view) and to activate (that is, increasing the salience of) inclusionary values.

Canvassers engaged in this exchange non-judgmentally by explicitly expressing interest in understanding individuals’ views and experiences, while also not expressing any negative judgments toward any statements hostile to the outgroup individuals made. The canvass training likewise instructed canvassers to “make it clear [to voters] we’re not there to judge them and we’re curious about their honest experience, whatever it is.”

During this exchange of narratives, canvassers asked questions that sought to prompt individuals to draw their own implications from the narratives. Canvassers’ goal was for this non-judgmental exchange of narratives to end with individuals self- generating and explicitly stating aloud implications of the narratives that ran contrary to their previously stated exclusionary attitudes. Qualitative debriefs with the canvassers indicate that such “self-persuasion” appeared to be common.

Finally, canvassers attempted to address common misconceptions, discussed why they were supportive of inclusionary policies, and asked individuals to describe whether and why the conversation changed their views. The conversations lasted around 10 minutes on average.

The study was conducted in 3 locations: central Tennessee; Fresno, California; and Orange County, California in areas that were expected to have higher concentrations of individuals with exclusionary attitudes toward unauthorized immigrants. The canvassing took place during the run-up to the 2018 US midterm elections (August–October, 2018), in which immigration issues featured prominently, such as when US President Donald Trump repeatedly warned voters about a caravan of unauthorized immigrants approaching the US–Mexico border.

The canvassers had no experience conducting in-person conversations to reduce exclusionary attitudes prior to the project, had an average age of 25, and were ethnically diverse, with 54% self-identifying as Latino.

The experiment began by recruiting registered voters (n = 217.600) via mail for an ostensibly unrelated online baseline survey, presented as the first in a series of surveys not specifically about immigration and which made no reference to any potential canvassing. We gathered voters’ contact information to recruit them to the survey from the public lists of registered voters. Following the canvassing intervention, we fielded follow-up surveys that began 4 days (n = 1.578), 30 days (n = 1,508), and 3–6 months (n = 1384) after the conversations. The surveys included 6 items measuring support for policies related to immigrants and 7 items capturing anti-immigrant prejudice.

The experiment yielded two main findings: First, interpersonal conversations that deployed the non-judgmental exchange of narratives reduced exclusionary attitudes toward unauthorized immigrants—a widely discussed, openly stigmatized group, attitudes toward whom have been deemed strong and resistant to change. Second, these effects lasted for at least 4.5 months in a competitive political context (the immediate run-up to the 2018 US midterm elections) in which elites, including US President Donald Trump, expressed contrary policy arguments and open hostility toward the group; and these effects persisted even among self-identified Republicans.

Parasocial contact

Face-to-face contact is that limited by a lack of opportunities due to:

These limitations has generated interest in the idea of “parasocial” contact – that is, contact with celebrities or characters from out-groups through mass media can reduce prejudice toward the out-group as a whole.

Scope conditions:

  1. Repeated exposure
  2. Positive experience
  3. Salient out-group identity

The Salah Effect:


To quote Alrababa’h et al.:

Salah’s Muslim identity is highly salient. His first name is recognizably Muslim, he prostrates in prayer after scoring a goal, and points his index finger to the sky while reciting the shahada, the Muslim profession of faith. Salah’s daughter, Makka, is named after Islam’s most sacred site, and his veiled wife can often be seen cheering him on from the sidelines.

Salah is distinctive in this way: Europe has seen many excellent players of Muslim heritage, but most are dissociated from Islam in the minds of fans because of their lack of public piety. By contrast, fan chants centered on Salah refer to mosques, Muslims, and Allah:



And here’s some data on hatecrimes in the Liverpool area before and after Salah was acquired by Liverpool FC:

A Second Case Study:

In 2018, during the FIFA Football World Cup, Switzerland played Serbia in a crucial group-stage match to determine whether Switzerland would proceed to the knockout round. The Swiss team turned the game in its last moments, with Xerdan Shaqiri and Granit Xhaka (both ethnic Kosovo-Albanians) scoring the decisive goals.

Both Shaqiri and Xhaka, along with team captain Stephan Lichtsteiner, celebrated their victory with a highly politicized “double-headed eagle” gesture, which symbolizes the heraldic animal of Albania.

As it so happens, sociologists Daniel Auer and Didier Ruedin were conducting a correspondence study of the Swiss housing market during the World Cup. Here’s what they find with respect to housing discrimination against Kosovar-Albanian applicants before and after the World Cup match:

Reminder: please fill out the online course evaluation